In a message dated 3/26/2005 4:26:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, bruce_gregory@SBCGLOBAL.NET writes:
[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0326.1625)]
I think we should have both ‘signals’ and ‘perceptions’. A
perception
being ANY conscious thought, or idea. A ‘signal’ could and would
account > for all control done without consciousness.
How would you go about testing this idea?
A true believer knows the solution before he understands the problem.
First, I would much prefer you refer to my idea’s rather than my person.
You might also want to state the truth as you know it. This is Bruce challenging Marc. After all I threw out a proposition. If you actually have a counter-claim I’d love to hear it. If you feel my thoughts are misplaced, I would like to know why you feel this to be so.
It doesn’t much matter who postulates what idea, the real issue is if it provides any value or help to a problem. Any idea will stand or fall based on the utility others find or don’t find in it. WHO it comes from is immaterial. That is one reason I no longer put a header on my posts.
Those who read my posts either like or dislike my ideas. That is one reason I continue to post and will continue to post to CSGnet REGARDLESS of who might actually respond to me.
It should not matter, but does unfortunately, who it’s from. WHAT is said, is the key, and hopefully with that an exchange of idea’s and data.
Of course if your post was merely a personal challenge to me, your wasting your time. I’m always open to the idea’s of others. That of course does not mean I will accept the ideas of others, but I do seek to falsify my idea’s. Unfortunately some view this process here on CSGnet as hubris, or worse, as an attempt to destroy something. (i.e. PCT) But I am actually trying very hard to build a theory of human behavior that moves toward the truth, and NO SINGLE INDIVIDUAL will ever possess it. All we can all hope to do is approximate it and if we are unwilling to share our idea’s, rethink or mistakes, and think critically we are all doomed to ignorance.
So to answer your question if it was asked with sincerity;
Test what? That I chose to categorize something into two distinct entities for the purpose of some clarity?
A ‘test’ would be quite simple. For my purposes if you can either think of it or feel it, then it is a ‘perception’. Everything else, for the time being, or at least until we have some more info and understanding of exactly what we are actually dealing with here, and would be considered a ‘signal’. That is, all conscious thought are ‘perceptions’, All non-conscious control processes involve ‘signals’
That would mean that if we were dealing with biological control systems at the cellular level for instance, we may not either be able to ‘feel’ a specific process taking place nor even think about it in order for it to be happening, this would be represented by the use of ‘signals’.
This categorization would benefit PCT because it would put the notion of ‘perceptions’ into the realm of accepted meaning in neuroscience and the social sciences. Learning new ideas is difficult enough do we have to reinvent a way of adding 2 + 2 = 4.
To toss this back into your lap, what advantages do you see in keeping the definition as is?
Marc